JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. State of Rajasthan has laid this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India to assail impugned judgment and order dated 31st of January, 2015 (Annex. 5) passed by Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short, 'BOR'). 2. By the impugned verdict (Annex. 5), learned BOR accepted the appeal of the respondent-agriculturists under Section 23(2A) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural and Holdings Act, 1973 (for short, 'Act of 1973') and set aside order dated 28th of July, 2006 (Annex.4) passed by Additional District Collector (Vigilance), Sriganganagar, which entailed dropping the proceedings under the Act of 1973 against the respondents. 3. The facts apposite, for the purpose of this writ petition, as narrated therein, are that proceedings were initiated against agriculturist, Sahiram, under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1936 (Old Ceiling Law) and the authorised officer (Ceiling-cum-Sub Divisional Officer), Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar, by its order dated 16th of May 1975, dropped the proceedings with a specific finding that agriculturist-assessee is not holding excess land. Subsequent to that, an endeavour was made by the State to evaluate the entire record and, by order dated 25th of September 1978, ceiling proceedings were reopened by resorting to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act of 1973. As a consequence of it, the Additional District Collector (Vigilance), Sriganganagar was directed to decide case of the agriculturist assessee afresh. This led to reopening of the case and consequently notices were issued to the agriculturist-assessee by the Additional District Collector. The Additional District Collector, after hearing both the parties and upon scanning the entire record, recorded its conclusion that assessee was not holding excess land on the cut off date and, with this affirmative finding, again dropped the proceedings against the agriculturist-assessee and order to this effect was passed on 20th of January 1988 (Annex.2). 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order (Annex.2), the State preferred an appeal before the learned BOR under Section 23 (2A) of the Act of 1973. The learned BOR, vide its judgment and order dated 22nd of March, 1993 (Annex.3), allowed the appeal of the State and remanded the matter back to Additional District Collector to decide the matter of the assessee-Sahiram again keeping in view the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1973 after giving full opportunity of hearing. The learned BOR, vide its judgment and order dated 22nd of March, 1993 (Annex.3), allowed the appeal of the State and remanded the matter back to Additional District Collector to decide the matter of the assessee-Sahiram again keeping in view the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1973 after giving full opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to remand order (Annex.3), the learned Additional District Collector (Vigilence), Sriganganagar considered the matter de-novo and by its order dated 28th July, 2006 (Annex.4) found that agriculturist-assessee was in possession of excess land of 55-10 bighas on 1st of April, 1966, which is to be vested in the State Government. The order (Annex.4), being detrimental to the interest of the agriculturist-assessee, it was challenged by legal heirs of assessee-Sahiram i.e. respondents before the learned BOR by preferring an appeal under Section 23(2A) of the Act of 1973. The learned BOR, after hearing rival parties, by its impugned judgment and order, allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee and dropped the proceedings under the Act of 1973. 5. I have heard learned Government counsel and perused the materials available on record. 6. A bare perusal of impugned judgment and order (Annex.5) clearly and unequivocally reveals that the learned BOR, while examining the matter in its entirety, has taken note of a Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Bhola Ram & Ors. v. Board of Revenue & Ors., [2012 (1) RRT 29], wherein the Court has held that it is not open to the authority competent to proceed again under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 after the proceedings had been initiated and culminated in favour of the land holder under Section 15 (4) of the Act of 1973. 7. There is yet another aspect of the matter that, at the threshold, proceedings were dropped by the competent authority against the assessee under the old ceiling law and subsequent thereto, when the proceedings were reopened by resorting to Section 15(1) of the Act of 1973, the Additional District Collector (Vigilance) Sriganganagar once again dropped the proceedings. It was only, after the remand of the matter, vide Annex.3, the Additional District Collector (Vigilance), Sriganganagar noticed the alleged excess land with the assessee. It was only, after the remand of the matter, vide Annex.3, the Additional District Collector (Vigilance), Sriganganagar noticed the alleged excess land with the assessee. This aspect has been re-examined by the learned BOR by the impugned judgment and order (Annex.5) and finally concluded that the order passed by the Additional District Collector (Vigilance) cannot be sustained. 8. In my considered opinion, the learned BOR has rightly placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench in Bhola Ram (supra) and consequently it is not a fit case wherein the order deserves interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The decision rendered by the Division Bench in Bhola Ram's case (supra) is precisely based on the observations made by Sahas Karan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., CWP No. 2598/1989, wherein the Larger Bench has approved the ratio of decision rendered in Smt. Pari Devi v. State of Rajasthan, [1984 RLR 931]. The Larger Bench, while answering the reference, held as under:- "In the case of Pari Devi (supra) leave to appeal was granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court was invoked, thus, the order passed in appeal would certainly attract the doctrine of merger and that affirms the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pari Devi. That being the position of law, the law laid down in the case of Ram Gopal is not a correct one, that stands impliedly overruled and the law laid down in Pari Devi's case (supra) holds the field in the subject matter. The reference made is answered accordingly." 10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mukhtiyar Singh & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors., SBCWP No. 4727/1999, decided on 21st November, 2013 has reiterated the same principle. 11. It is really a matter of serious concern that the petitioner-State is persecuting the agriculturist-assessee Sahiram since 1975 as during his lifetime he was dragged to the protracted litigation and, even after his death, the respondents - legal heirs of the agriculturist-assessee, are also sought to be persecuted without any justifiable reason in spite of the fact that legal position on the issue is no more res-integra. 12. 12. The learned Board of Revenue upon evaluation of available material on record has also found that at the threshold ceiling case No. 84/1970 was dropped against the assessee - agriculturist Sahiram on 14.09.1970 and that judgment attained finality by efflux of time as no appeal was preferred by the State. That apart, Board of Revenue has also taken cognizance of a vital fact about dropping of ceiling proceeding against the assessee under the Act of 1973 by the competent authority vide order dated 16.05.1975 for reiterating its affirmative conclusion that reopening of proceedings under the old ceiling law is not permissible. Invocation of legal embargo for reopening of proceedings is based on sound reasonings duly supported by legal precedents. As such challenge to impugned judgment and order is not sustainable. 13. The instant petition against the impugned judgment and order (Annex.5) is also filed after a lapse of almost two years inasmuch as the impugned verdict was rendered on 31st of January 2014 and the present petition is filed on 18th of January, 2016 and there is no explanation much less plausible explanation for delay of two years. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the writ petition is not entertain able on merits as well as delay and laches. Resultantly, petition fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed summarily.